|V'rel Vusoryn Goblin Squad Member|
If you start the MMORPG.com hyping be prepared for a heavy negative influx of "haters" that will troll 24/7. Especially of the PVPing variety who will come and point out how PFO PvP is "carebear" and how their PVP game is real PvP.
Just saying. Been a member of that site since 2004.
Captain Marsh wrote:
Well, you'll have to understand that it is irksome to have to see yet another concerned table top player come in to express his worries that resemble the same worries that guy #184 expressed last week. It's not to say you aren't welcome here but your concerns (as none of them weren't items we haven't heard before and addressed) ring akin to the passengers in the back continuously asking "are we there yet?" for many here.
Per the question asked to you, I have yet to see an answer for a TT company that folded because they made an attempt at an MMO. With respect to Wizards I'd fully argue that their loss in credibility had to do with Eberron being the next big setting and the release of 4th edition (for which they have essentially apologized for when they announced wanting fan input for the creation of this next addition).
Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) suffered because it was a) in a new setting that was not familiar, and b) because it was not a wide open explorable world where players could own land, build kingdoms and all of the other mature aspects of table top gaming that aren't just hack and slash. If DDO had been set in the Forgotten Realms and had the gameplay that PFO is working on it would have been much better received.
Paizo, in my view, really doesn't have any other competition in the high fantasy TTRPG genre. Wizards would have been but they gambled on a themepark TT design for D&D 4 and it blew up on them. I bet the folks at Paizo see the lead they have in this genre and aren't interested in giving up any ground. I doubt the TT portion will lose any steam and products will continue to come out as normal.
Carlos Cabrera wrote:
What Keovar said above me.
Also, I wouldn't say it was totally unprecedented. Asheron's Call 1 had a system in which when you died you left anywhere from 3 to 5 of the most expensive items on your corpse. If you did not make it back to your corpse to retrieve them in time, the corpse decayed and so with it those items. This brought about a demand for so-called "death items" which were mundane loot that do to the RNG was assigned a very high pyreal (the currency) value and as such would be likely to drop on your corpse rather than some other piece of gear you actually needed.
Like I said, not exactly the same but close in that items left on corpse went away permently if precautions (death items [AC], Threading[PFO]) were taken.
So you may not directly admit that your stance is "anyone playing anything but a lawful good play style needs to be treated like the absolute worst garbage possible", but that's only because you don't see the very obvious differences in degrees. So from the perspective of anyone who can see those degrees, that's your stance.
So, then, from the perception of those who see murder as murder, your stance is you want lax laws as to passively encourage continuous deviant* behavior.
Cool. I guess stances are cleared up now. Interesting.
Anyway, I've got to go make a couple of Warhammer Fantasy army lists for some gaming tonight. Take care!
Nobody suggested any encouragement, just degrees of punishment to match degrees of deviance. That was explained to you and you objected. If that's not what you actually meant, then you're just being stubborn about whatever point you think you're making.
Wait, are we done? Your last post made it seem like you were through with talking with me. It seemed a little exasperated.
Okay, just like lying by omission, lax laws or laws with no teeth encourage deviant* behavior. Sure, it may not be blatant proactive prodding, but it is pushing nonetheless.
Again, you may see degrees in your example, I do not. Just as Nihimon and another pointed out. We three see just plain ole murder, as was explained to you.
Point: Murder or deviant* behavior shouldn't be encouraged by lax laws in places where that type behavior isn't wanted.
Now Blaeringr, I didn't say that. Come on now. I myself don't intend to play LG. Just being objective laws are their to punish deviant* behavior, not encourage it.
I guess we are done discussing this then. Thanks for the chat! :D
And a person who has to deal with the shock of being murdered and then resurrected once is not dealing with anywhere near the same shock of someone who is constantly being hounded and killed over and over by the same person.
Again, a consequence of their deviant* actions. I don't feel any sorrow for them as they knew society's rules and chose to break them. That to me is consent to the repercussions of the socially accepted laws of the land. Going easy on them or providing circumstances that encourage them to do it again would be counter to law and good.
In the real world, killing is killing, yes. But in a world overflowing with resurrection, no.
It's not a matter of having resurrection or not. If player A punches player B in the face and then hands them a cookie, Player B, though he/she may love cookies, is still going to be pained from the right cross they just took.
So yeah, a person may resurrect, but they still have to deal with the shock of being murdered and quite possibly having some of their stuff taken. That sense of being wronged persists.
No, I really don't. They are the same base deviant* behavior. That said I fully believe a player should be able to carryout either or, but I'm not going to whitewash or champion one as being better or more wholesome than the other.
Just because it is advertised as open PvP doesn't mean it is open Jack Donkey too. A player has the option to attack a person in the ways you listed. That doesn't mean they are free from consequence.
1) The Consequences should matter;
I just find it odd that folks who would engage in said deviant behavior wouldn't expect there to be harsh punishment for their actions. It should be considered part of the territory.
*Based on the absolute definitions of Good vs Evil in PFO.
So, a griefer being killed is punishment to them? I thought they were supposed to like combat, pvp and all that fighting stuff. If anything it should be a boon as they are, as long as the reporter has money, guaranteed to be hunted and have that added risk vs. reward excitement.
Agree with you 100% :)
Ideally I'd like the person to realize what they said that was offensive but I do agree that trying to get them to realize that on forums is most often futile. Yes, it isn't necessary for a great community but it seems a disservice to them and open for them to then determine that they are being persecuted. Idealistic me? Probably.
Yep, that's probably the best thing to do considering our forum options.
Aye. I do like that system where I've seen it used.
Noted! *sneaks across yard one more time* :D
<shortened quote to jump into point, not to be rude :P>
So it seems where you and I differ is how that example goes is the saving face part. To me that's just an extension of the "everyone gets a trophy" phenomena that has been plaguing western society and filtering out to the rest of the world over the last 15 years.
You either win or place. Trophies for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No participation trophies. Tell the kid to try harder next time.
Same here, you're wrong or you're right. No saving face. Humility. Admit you're wrong and move on. When you try to save face the other person isn't going to a) really accept your apology) and b) let it go.
Somewhere somehow personal responsibility for ones actions became a bad thing or was misplaced. Now days its okay for a person to admit they are wrong...as long as it isn't me. Frankly, that attitude stinks. It won't get you anywhere in the real world, that's for sure. Somewhere, someday, someone is going to severely work you over if you have trouble saying "I apologize, I was wrong", and leaving it at that.
I contend that in both of your examples above...that if he makes the apology without the saving face part, it is accepted and the issue forgotten. Where this fails, though, is that after that has happened, people who are late comers to the discussion adding their 2 cents in such a way that only flames the fires. Especially after an apology, 3 hours later you get "He shouldn't have had to apologize. Freedom of speech, blah blah blah <insert rant that only applies to American rights on a forum that has international membership>".
Yes, but that person gets to choose whether they are ostracized or not. As I said above when multiple folks say "Hey, that wasn't cool" and the person chooses not to apologize unequivocally, but instead say to the effect "I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be so sensitive"...Then they can and may be over just one comment.
That person has to show that they are mature enough to see what they did and own it. THey have to show that it was a one time thing, I believe.
Which was one of my points in the other thread. Male "locker room" humor belongs just there, in the boys locker room. Though many would say that isn't a safe place for it anymore. It certainly doesn't belong on a game forum, not in this day and age.
I can't agree that letting it go is the right thing, initially. If a person isn't socially aware enough to know that what they are about to say could possibly offend someone, then it rightfully should be pointed out to them. Maybe they will learn, often times they won't.
Now, here is the pivot point. If they acknowledge the issue, apologize without trying to save face, THEN it needs to be let go.
More often than not, though, you get some half arsed apology with "ifs" and "buts" and a quip or two that suggests the offended has flaws in that they can't take a joke. Those people are Socially Immature (Dr. Robert Kegan, Harvard, The Evolving Self, 1982) in most cases. There is no point in trying to get them to see how they could have offended, not on a forum anyway and especially as regular forum folk.
In this latter case once the person continues the pattern of behavior, again because in their mind they are doing no wrong, then just flag them and let normal admin take course. If a person isn't willing to see their faults when pointed out to them by multiple individuals who aren't affiliated and have no personal gain out of speaking up, there usually, again, is very little their peers can do to change their way of thought.
That's my opinion anyway based on life experience and university.
1) It was "little boy" humor as it's the kind of thing said by little boys. I know, I once was one. Spade is a spade.
2) Within society as a whole it is pretty much accepted that comments, even under the guise of "just a joke" made about gender, race, religion, color, creed, and often politics are best not said as they lead to conflict, evidence what you stirred up here because in your mind if it didn't offend you it's obviously okay to just say it aloud.
Based on your responses here you have missed the point Jessica made (you thought it was your saying boob armor when it was instead you suggesting that all females not wearing it were griefing you) and missing my point here (It's not the boob joke part of what I said, it's the need by a large portion of male gamers to always say something witty or try to be funny)..based on those responses I'd have to believe that you just say stuff and truly don't have a clue that what you say may be construed as offensive.
Every "apology" you gave was a defensive one with "ifs" and "maybes". The high, mature road of just saying "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" and leaving it at that seems to elude you. That or you just don't give a crap...I don't know which is worse.
I don't know that I have a real strong opinion either way. I had no issue, once I got my "technique" down, of looting others in Ultima Online where you had to drag/drop anything you wanted. Reagents were a pain in the rear, though, and people learned to bury their most prized items under stacks of junk which made it interesting. The packs were free placement, not neat little slots like modern MMOs (which I think I like better.
It doesn't seem like, based on the encumbrance bit, that a given player will be able to full loot non-threaded items from much more than one or two near full encumbered persons. Course that is a guesstimate and will have to wait and see real numbers. But if that were true I don't think I'd mind a "retrieve all" button. After all they still have to wait 6 seconds before they can start looting anyway.
Is it planned to have a "retrieve all" button when looting corpses in general. If so will that mechanic be intelligent enough to claim as many items from your kill up to just below your encumbrance allowance or will it just pop a message saying that there is too much to pick up, thus you have to drag/drop loot.
Additionally will their be varying levels of encumbrance that slow your run/walk speed in relation to how encumbered you are? Will encumbrance affect melee combat? Crafting? Casting?
Thread does not need to be locked. The issue was handled, and for the record I disagree with the assessment of Avari of the situation. Sure, what was said was most surely said in jest, but having been on game forums for 15+ years now when is the time that this "little boy" humor stops? Everything doesn't have to be funny. Everything doesn't have to be a boob joke.
Believe me, I've said my share of them. Was in the Army for a good while. That said, and strangely on topic, as I mentioned earlier in this thread is that it's not only straight white males playing these games now. People need to THINK before they open their traps. When your "joke" has a qualifier of a trait that belongs to another human being, best keep it to yourself and immediate friends that you know won't take offense.
They don't, however, and say what they want because the internet prevents one thing: the other person punching you in the face for saying it.
Lol it's a joke. I thought the whole direction of the discussion was definitely odd anyways, discussing the whole logistics of hammering out n refitting plate for different players.
Probably should keep your gender (or race, religious, political) jokes to yourself. Just saying. When they call the attention of a Project Manager (or any other forum admin type) then your joke most likely was not funny or appropriate.
I agree that settlement leaders should have this level of flexibility in governing their settlements. The options should allow for a settlement to completely shut itself off to outside entities, disallowing them use of its facilities sum total as well as entrance (by having guards attack on sight; sneaky types should still have a chance sneak in and do their thing based on skills).
A settlement should be allowed to be as closed as that, or as open as anyone and everyone can enter and make use of facilities.
I think it important to have have those filters cover alignment, reputation, CC membership, CC's alignment and Reputation, Criminal record, Settlement residency, Settlement's Alignment and Reputation (if character is from another settlement) and any other Social Status qualifiers that can be used gate entrance.
I like this explanation and have used it many times talking to other friends about sandbox games in general and PFO in particular. Especially to friends who have never played a sandbox style game like Ultima Online, EvE and (pre NGE) SWG.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
@V'rel Vusoryn - the cost of everything you get with a subscription will be higher if you buy it ala carte via micro transactions.
Hmm, well, I guess that's the missing piece(s), then. So far I've only seen training time as part of what you get. It's everything else a subscription entails that I'm not seeing.
Are you (GW) prepared to talk about that at this time? I assume no as it would have been in the OP. If it is mentioned elsewhere then someone please direct me as it seems I have rolled a 1 on Perception.
Kevin C Jenkins wrote:
Which only changes my question slightly in that if I have trained all the skills I need/want then why have a subscription? At that point I can just purchase the requisite amount of time I need if I have to retrain because skills got nerfed or changed in such a manner they are no longer desirable.
I guess I'm not seeing any point to paying a subscription, then, after Release if all it does is grant access to the game for which you don't have to pay for anyway?
Unless you're saying the Microtransaction system is to allow folks to purchase game time in an "as they go" and that the store is its own other thing that you buy consumables from that make the game easier.
Which if that's the case why even offer subscriptions if we can essentially just pay for the time we are logged in? Who wouldn't do that?
Yeah, I wondered about that a few weeks ago, but figured since it was said that the plan was to eventually host separate forum from here it was seen as trivial. That said it takes all of a few seconds to do, would show GW site drive bys that there is a community building and possibly lead to more in crowdfunding.
I know quite a few of the Reaper folks as I live about 2 miles down the road from their HQ. I see them at local grocery stores and various other places gamers go here in Denton. They are indeed good people which is why I go to Reaper Con every Year.
Indeed, Ryan you guys should make some kind of showing at Reaper Con the next two years (and beyond?). We loved having Sean R. down and it's always good to see Pathfinder folks down this way.
Edit: Oh, and I'll make the same offer I made Cliffhanger Productions with Shadowrun Online (they partnered with Reaper for minis). If you do make a showing and have a booth/table or whatever I'll volunteer to help if needed. Again I live 2 miles from the HQ and have a fairly wide open schedule.
I would hope that GW would represent the Human races from pasty white to dark as night just as the PFRPG does. I think that is one of the great parts about PFRPG and at this day and age it isn't only white males rolling dice.
Indeed the RPG gaming scene is alot more colorful these days. While it is pretty much a given that people of European and Asian heritage play RPGs, believe it or not there are a large percentage of people of African heritage that play RPGs too.
So yes, please pass this on to the skin palette team and if racial bonuses or the like make it in that team as well. Please use the entire palette as represented in the actual Campaign books. If a race makes it into the game, then make sure all variations that are represented in PFRPG are in PFO.
Well, one notion I want to address is the assumption that just because a given action is performed in a PvP area it is somehow automatically harder to do than in an area where the police respond faster. This assumes that everytime that action is performed they are attacked which is not true. Thus the majority of the time, and even more so now after reading Lee Hammock's post, the action is of equal difficulty.
My point: If player A works long and consistently mining X in the "safer" area he should be able to make as much coin from his efforts over time as Player B mining Y in the "less safe" area.
They may not be harvesting or crafting the exact same thing, but all craftable items should have some measure of sustained demand. Additionally the items from resource Y should not always have more value than those from resource X. Ideally they should fluctuate so that during different periods or in different situations each has a chance to be preferable.
Loose example, but let's say iron is X and gold is Y. Gold typically is more sought after and assigned a higher monetary price. Yet if there is a war going on Iron may be more valuable at that time to make weapons and armor. Gold is terrible to make weapons and armor with. Sure, you may use gold to buy Iron weapons, but ultimately it is the iron at that time that is most valuable.
Onishi, you're drilling down and going into areas that, while are valid, are totally missing the premise of my point. My point being a high level, a macro level and you went micro.
I did not accuse you of an attack. I merely requested a ground rule for the discussion, that being the use of general terms as has been done by everyone else in this thread so far. I guess i should have just stated a caveat to not assume you (since you want to use personal descriptors) know what my thoughts on PVP itself are.
I completely understand everything you noted in this second section. I'm not sure where you were headed with this one. I will take a stab and answer that my point was merely about those staying in safer areas still being able to comparable profit. So say you operate in less safe areas and make your coin from capturing Golden Rabbits. I decide to work in a safer area where there are no Golden Rabbits but there are Chocolate Rabbits.
Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.
People's perception will vary.
I agree, they will. The cheating part is a tough one, but not one that couldn't be worked out with testing. As for the rest of this section I'll decline from commenting as it goes a direction (shrinking less safe area and increasing safer areas) that I never hinted at nor suggested.
That was supposed to read "There might even be a few players who could BEAT such an AI too. But that number would be tiny." Typo, my mistake.
Robb Smith wrote:
Then your example with Platedewed is no different. You tried to leave that example as ambiguous as possible but in truth PD had no idea what the other guy was going to do so therefore he isn't griefing. Just because he "lol" once he was told doesn't make him a griefer. If he continues to buff the other guy, then sure. Your example does not state that he does continue buffing the same guy so one can also infer that he learned what this guy's intentions were and won't buff him again.
Robb Smith wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
I never stated that I expect players to be able to harvest everything for themselves alone. If that is what you perceived , well, as with Andius, that is unfortunate. It's not my stance, however. I only stated that a person operating in safer (there are no safe zones as I understand it) should be able to make a comparable fortune. It may not be in the Copper trade, but might be in the Green Beans trade.
Risk, or perceived risk especially when talking PvP, should not be the defining article of wealth.
As for the AI matter, let's not make this personal. As far as I know I have never discussed my personal view on PvPing with you. Lets talk in generals. That established my point was that trying to make out that PVP's "riskiness" is grounds for generating more wealth in my view is false as an AI can be created that puts up an tougher fight (read: even more risk) than the majority of humans. Developers choose not to do so, but it can be done. (and no, I'm not suggesting they do so with PFO, I'm just pointing the fact out)
I think it is pretty well known that the intent is to have "safer" areas but there is the possibility to be attacked anywhere. At least that is the point from which I am talking. If you read "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" in anything I've written then that is an unfortunate perception. I'm not coming from that angle.
That said someone who chooses to operate in the safer areas should be able to make their fortunes there and be as wealthy as anyone elsewhere. They may not have the exact same things, but comparable. I stand by that.
Decius' post above this one illustrates my stance very, very well.
There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.
They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.
If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.
There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.
Well, I will agree to disagree with you on the "master" part of things as from my view part of that was making the "best" items on your respective server and only the players could determine that by them buying from you.
I also factor in their dynamic resource spawning system which required effort (not saying it was hard or easy) to find the right stat resources to maximize whatever trait you were going to punch on a given item. This I know due to the PA I ran in which my best bud was in the top 3 weapon crafters on the server and I was in the same bracket making Stim-Ds and other medical supplies.
Sure, the actual motions of making something were simple, and I feel that's as they should be. I hated (and stated it multiple threads in beta) EQ2's initial crafting system. Crafting shouldn't be a minigame. Developers need to spend less time trying to make gimmiky crafting and focus on the scope and utility of what can be crafted.
And SWG was a solid base on that principle in my view.
As long as it allows the avenue for a player then it isn't broken in my mind. The real point is that I do not subscribe to the line of thought that being in a PvP area is more risk because of other players attacking you and so you should get "more" or "better". "Different" rewards, sure.
While it hasn't been done in a major MMO yet, AI can be programmed to be even tougher without "cheating" and thus an even greater Risk vs, Reward option.
There might even be a few players who could be such an AI too. But that number would be tiny.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
As someone that was there for the whole ride I'll point out that it didn't "fail" which respect to the 200K plus subscribers (many of which had multiple subs). The game did not generate the millions of subs that World of Warcraft had and which from what I heard was a goal for SOE and LA, sure. Monetary fail for those two, okay.
That said in the realm of fun gameplay mechanics PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.
No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.